In the chapter Paul the false
Apostle I mentioned that many scholars believe the book of Hebrews was
not written by Paul. In spite of the fact that the message of Hebrews is
similar to that of Paul's message in that he believes the Law has been done away
with, I agree with the scholars for a number of reasons. First, unlike every
other letter written by Paul, the author of Hebrews does not identify himself.
Secondly, the author's grasp of the Greek language is superior to Paul's and is
very eloquent compared to Paul. Paul regularly starts a thought-line and then
losses it as he runs off on a tangent. The writer of Hebrews follows a very
systematic strait forward line of reasoning from which he does not swerve. And
third, the style of writing is significantly different than that of Paul's.
Paul's style is to continually refer to himself with the use of personal
pronouns like "I", "me", "my", and "mine". The author of the book of Hebrews
refers to himself only 7 times in the entire book. Paul's self-interest is
especially evident in Romans and 1st and 2nd Corinthians where he uses personal
pronouns 103,175 and 103 times respectively in these three books. The author of
Hebrews coming in at only 7 times was obviously not as interested in making
something of himself.

Of the possible choices for author
of Hebrews there is really only one good candidate and that person is Apollos.
Apollos was a leader in the early Messianic movement and he is mentioned ten
times in the New Testament. Twice in the book of Acts, and eight times by
Paul himself. We are first introduced to him in Acts 18:24.

Now a certain Jew named Apollos,
born at Alexandria, an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures, came to
Ephesus. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being
fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately*
the things of the Lord...*The commentary that Apollos "taught accurately", comes from
Luke's point of view.

Paul also speaks of Apollos as a
prominent leader with an apparently significant following. His name is mentioned
right along with the likes of himself, Peter, and Yeshua.

Now I say this, that each of you
says, "I am of Paul," or "I am of Apollos," or "I am of Cephas," or "I am of
Christ." 1Corinthians 1:12

Note the order of the names. Apollos
is the closest to Paul who names himself first. Paul undoubtedly thinks highly
of Apollos because Apollos generally agrees with his doctrine. We know that
Apollos was influenced by Pauline doctrine through Aquila and Priscilla who
themselves spent much time with Paul and later "explained the way of God more
accurately" to Apollos. Acts 18:18-28

If indeed Apollos was the author of
Hebrews it would make perfect sense why he did not identify himself as the
author of the book. The book was written to the Hebrew people. Unlike the way
most of us use names today, the Jewish people made much of a person's name. A
name was supposed to tell you something about that person. Apollos was not named
after the God of Israel or any of the patriarchs as most non-Hellenic Jews were.
He was a Greek Jew, born in Alexandria Egypt and named after the pagan god
Apollo the son of Zeus! A book with a name like Apollos attached to it would
automatically have three strikes against it in the eyes of most Hebrew people.

Is Hebrews any better?

It makes little difference who wrote
the book of Hebrews. It is the subject matter of the book which is most
important. As I have shown, Paul is a false apostle and his words are far from
being the infallible word of God. But if Paul did not write the book of
Hebrews, the question arises: Is the book of Hebrews doctrinally sound? Being it
is a favorite among many Christians, this question needs to be answered. There
might be a few who might be willing to go way out on a limb and question Paul as
long as they can hang on to Hebrews. All aspects of the book of Hebrews should
be viewed from both of two perspectives. They are the personal style with which
the author paints his picture, and the actual subject matter and doctrine of the
book. First, the style of thought.

The style of thought.

Whether it was written by Apollos or
not, the author of the book of Hebrews was unquestionably steeped in Hellenistic
philosophical thought styles. As mentioned in a previous chapter, early in the
first century, there was another Jewish scholar... a prolific writer and
expositor of the Hebrew Bible known as Philo Judaeus of Alexandria.
Interestingly enough, Alexandria Egypt is the same place Apollos was born!
Alexandria was a Mecca for those of Greek Platonic philosophical studies,
complete with one of the ancient world's most exhaustive libraries. The style of
Philo's writings are remarkably similar to some of those found in the book of
Hebrews. In the foreword of C.D. Yonge's translation of Philo's works, David M.
Scholer makes these observations:

Philo has also often been
considered especially significant for the conceptual background of the Epistle
to the Hebrews. It seems clear that there is no evidence that the author of
Hebrews had read Philo and that the author utilizes a whole range of Jewish
traditions, some of which have remarkable similarities to the writings of
Qumran and the writings of Philo. As the recent commentator on Hebrews Harold
W. Attridge, observes: "...there are undeniable parallels that suggest that
Philo and our author (of Hebrews) are indebted to similar traditions of
Greek-speaking and -thinking Judaism". One passage in Hebrews illustrates the
possible connections between the thought worlds of Philo and the author of
Hebrews. In Hebrews 8:5 the author argues: "They offer worship in a sanctuary
that is a sketch and shadow of the heavenly one". The distinction between a
"Heavenly reality" and the observable, phenomenal world as "Sketch and shadow"
is a (Middle) Platonic idea, but bears much in common with Philo's expressions
of these ideas.

As a person reads the book of
Hebrews it quickly becomes evident that the author views all historical events
recorded in the Hebrew Bible as sketches, shadows, and figures of things that
were to come. This way of viewing history is so predominant in the book of
Hebrews that it has taken on a philosophical life of its own in the mind of the
author. So strong is this view, that the historical events themselves begin to
lose relevance concerning the actual people of history to whom the events
occurred! All of history is viewed as having the sole purpose of teaching
through allegory the only people who really mattered... themselves. It is a very
self-centered manner in which to view history... a Greek style as common
in that day as is the scientific way of viewing events today. Largely due
to the book of Hebrews, this allegorical way of viewing history continues to be
alive and well in many corners of Christianity today.

The next thing that becomes
painfully obvious as one takes an overview of the book of Hebrews is that there
is no literal physical or earthly interpretation of any prophecies in the Bible.
None, zip, nada! This is especially true concerning the many prophecies of the
Messianic age. It is very important to note the fact that the writer of Hebrews
makes absolutely no mention of a Messianic age to come. All prophecies
are given a past-tense and fulfilled, heavenly interpretation. There is a reason
for this. From here, we now get into the subject matter of the book of Hebrews.

The subject
matter/doctrine of Hebrews

Throughout all of Jewish history,
believers in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob have eagerly looked for the
promised Messiah to bring the peace on earth which God had promised. But the
early Messianics had a problem. Yeshua, the one who they thoroughly believed to
be the Messiah was gone. And to add insult to injury, there was certainly no
peace on earth. This sad fact was finally driven home and all hope lost in the
year 70 when Rome sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the temple. For a number of
reasons, many scholars believe Hebrews was written some time after the
destruction of the temple around 80-85. One obvious reason being that the
author is strangely silent concerning the second temple. Up until the
destruction of the temple, most Messianics believed Yeshua would return in their
lifetime to set up the kingdom of God and begin fulfilling the great bulk of
Messianic prophecies that remained unfulfilled. These prophecies mandated that
temple worship, complete with burnt offerings, be in full operation.

After the destruction of the temple
there were only two ways to answer the problem if one was to continue believing
Yeshua was the Messiah. Either Yeshua would return and rebuild the temple at
some later date, or the Messianic prophecies were not supposed to be understood
in a literal physical fulfillment here on this earth. Also for many, there was
one other pesky problem that needed an answer. The question was, what did
Yeshua's sacrifice accomplish in the way of fulfilling any need for animal
sacrifice! Many Greek Jews as well as Gentiles had a severe aversion to animal
sacrifices to start with. This is where the book of Hebrews comes in. In short,
the author rises to the occasion to answer these problems by reasoning that
everything has been fulfilled in a heavenly sense by Yeshua's sacrifice. But
then the author bolsters his logic several times in his letter with intimidation
tactics. He threatened damnation on those who didn't agree with him and fall in
line. This is nothing more than an extortive tactic used by many in Christianity
today and throughout history. More on this later.

Along with the prophecies concerning
the Messiah, Hebrews makes much of a new covenant. This new covenant we
will also look at shortly. But first, let's look in more detail at some of the
Messianic prophecies the book of Hebrews deals with .

The Messiah as
King and Priest

Early on in the book of Hebrews the author begins
to rest much of his ongoing line of logic on the assumption that the Messiah (Yeshua)
is to be similar to Melchizedek as prophesied in the Psalms. The writer of
Hebrews quotes Psalm 110:4:

"The Lord has sworn and will not relent, "You
are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek." Hebrews 5:6 NKJV

It is precisely how the Messiah is like
Melchizdek that is in question here. The writer of Hebrews is correct in
interpreting this passage as a Messianic prophecy, but completely misses the
point of how Messiah is like Melchizedek. Hebrews makes the connection
this way.

For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of
the Most High God,...without father, without mother, without genealogy, having
neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son
of God...

Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood, what further
need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of (likeness
of) Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron. ...

For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke
nothing concerning priesthood. And it is yet far more evident if, in the
likeness of Melchizedek there arises another priest. Excerpts
Hebrews 7:1-15.

The author of Hebrews claims that Yeshua is like
Melchizedek in two ways. Like Melchizedek, Yeshua supposedly has no father,
mother or genealogy, and secondly, he is like Melchizedek in that he is not
of the Levitical priesthood. The notion that Yeshua had no genealogy is a bit of
a head-scratcher! We have both his maternal grandfather Heli's genealogy in Luke
3:24-38, and his adoptive father Joseph’s genealogy in Matthew 1:1-17. (These
presuppositions will be further established later) What's even more ironic is
Hebrews' second ascertain which states that Yeshua was like Melchizedek in that
he was not of the Levitical priesthood because he was of the tribe of Judah.
Question: If Yeshua has no genealogy, how can Hebrews assert Yeshua was from the
tribe of Judah?! Also note that the idea Melchizedek had no father or mother is
also preposterous. But because Melchizedek's parents aren't mentioned in
Genesis, and in the mind of the writer of Hebrews it's all just an allegory for
us anyway, he can go ahead and try to sell this logic.

After drawing the conclusion that Yeshua is of a
different priesthood than that of the Levites, Hebrews continues with this bit
of logic.

"For the priesthood being changed, of
necessity there is also a change of the law." Hebrews 7:12

To which I must ask... Why? Who said so? Where
is that written? The Law is not the priest's law... its God's Law!
Any and all priests are to execute God's Law no matter what their genealogy! In
spite of this fact, it should be noted that Yeshua does in fact have Levitical
priesthood blood! This fact renders Hebrews' argument invalid from the start.
More in a bit. But the author of Hebrews then continues to build on this phony
presupposition, and much like Paul, does away with the law of Moses... actually
going so far as to call it old or obsolete. (Hebrews 8:13)

Back to the prophecy from Psalms. If the
connection of the Messiah to Melchizedek is not as Hebrews would have us
believe, then what is the connection? The answer is to be found in the
Psalm itself.

The Lord shall send the rod of your
strength out of Zion. Rule in the midst of Your enemies... The Lord has
sworn and will not relent, Your are a priest forever according to the
order of Melchizedek. (excerpts from Psalm 110:2-4)

This is without question a Messianic prophecy.
The Messiah is referred to here as "the rod" and he must of necessity be a
king... a descendant of David of the tribe of Judah. So the Messiah is like
Melchizedek simply by reason that he is both king and priest in one.

Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought
out bread and wine; he was the priest of God Most High. Gen. 14:18

The kingdom and priesthood have always been
separate in Israel's history. The Messiah is the one who is to bring the two
together into one office. How the Messiah is like Melchizedek is really very
simple. Hebrews makes it more difficult than it really is.

There are other wonderful Messianic prophecies
that corroborate this King and Priest in one person picture.

"Behold, the days are coming,’ says the
Lord, ‘that I will perform that good thing which I have promised to the house
of Israel and to the House of Judah: ‘In those days and at that time I will
cause to grow up to David a Branch of righteousness; He shall execute
judgment and righteousness* in the
earth. In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will dwell safely. And
this is the name by which she will be called: "THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS" For
thus says the Lord: ‘David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the
house of Israel; nor shall the priests, the Levites, lack a man to offer burnt
offerings before Me, to kindle grain offerings, and to sacrifice
continually.’"
Jeremiah 33:14-18 NKJV

*It is the
king's responsibility to "execute" judgment from the throne, and it
is the priest's job to "execute" righteousness by officiating at the
altar.

"Take the silver and gold, make an elaborate
crown, and set it on the head of Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high
priest (a Levite). Then speak to him saying, 'Thus says the Lord of hosts,
saying: "Behold the Man whose name is the BRANCH! From his place he shall
branch out, and he shall build the temple of the Lord; Yes, he shall build the
temple of the Lord. He shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule on his
throne; So he shall be a priest on his throne, and the counsel
of peace shall be between *them both."’
Zechariah 6:12,13

* NKJV
footnote = "Both offices". (King and Priest)

Some rabbis believed the Messiah would come from
the tribe of Levi based on this passage from Zechariah. The previous passage
from Jeremiah 33 at first appears to be asking the impossible if one
person is to fill both offices of king and priest. It says that David will not
"lack a man" (obviously a descendant), and the Levites will also not "lack a
man"... so this too must mean a priestly descendant of Levi. The only way these
prophecies can work in a single person is if the Messiah is a type of half-blood
union of each tribe. It would appear that no one has put together the
fact that Yeshua is just such a person with 50% pure Levitical priesthood blood
from his maternal grandmother!

Since Yeshua had no physical earthly father, it
logically flows that his physical bloodlines would be identical to that of his
mother Mary. Mary's father Heli was a direct descendant of David. We have his
genealogy in Luke 3:23-38. Where it says Joseph was the son of Heli, we
should understand that he was Heli's son-in-law, and not his literal physical
son anymore than Yeshua was Joseph's physical son. Joseph's physical genealogy
is found in Matthew 1:1-16. Mary's father was a direct descendant of David, but
Mary's mother was a full-blooded descendant of Aaron of the tribe of Levi. We
know this because Elizabeth, the wife of Zechariahs the priest, had to be a
full-blooded Levite woman. The priests, the sons of Aaron, were required
by the Law to marry only Levite woman. (Leviticus 21:13,14) Luke 1:5 says that
Elizabeth was just such a person in that she was "of the daughters of Aaron".
Here is the interesting part. In Luke 1:36 one translation tells us that
Elizabeth was Mary's cousin! The Greek word actually means close next
of kin, so the only other possibility would be that Elizabeth was Mary's
aunt! Considering Elizabeth was "well advanced in years" and therefore
significantly older than Mary, it is more likely that Elisabeth was in fact
Mary's aunt. So for Mary to be Elizabeth's niece would mean that Mary's
mother had to be a full-blooded Levite sister to either Elizabeth or her
full-blooded Levite husband Zacharias. If Mary was Elizabeth's cousin, it
would mean that Mary's mother was a full-blooded Levite sister to one of
Elizabeth's parents! Either way, for Mary to be a close relative to Elizabeth
means that Mary's mother had to be a full-blooded Levite woman. Levite women
were permitted to marry outside the tribe as did Mary's mother when she
married Heli, a descendant of David of the tribe of Judah. So this means that
both Mary and Yeshua are physically 50% Davidic blood and 50% Priestly
Levitical blood. With genealogical credentials like Yeshua's, every Jew should
stand up and take notice. No one could possibly come along with records that
begin to rival these that are documented in millions of copies of the Bible all
over the world today!

Yeshua's baptism

Considering the fact of Yeshua's 50% priestly
bloodline and the concept of him being both king and priest, something
interesting he said at his baptism needs to be viewed in a new light. Bear in
mind that it is the kings responsibility to execute judgment from the
throne, and the priests responsibility to execute righteousness by
officiating at the altar. This is not to say that the King has no need of
righteousness or the priests of judging a matter. It simply means that each has
their responsibility before God and the nation to see that their respective
divine mandates are executed.

When Yeshua came to John and asked John to
baptize him, John immediately recoils at the thought.

Then Yeshua came from Galilee to John at the
Jordan to be baptized by him. And John tried to prevent him, saying, "I have
need to be baptized by you, and are you coming to me?" But Yeshua answered and
said to him, "Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill
all righteousness." Matthew 3:13-15

John was accustomed to baptizing people in
response to their repentance of sins. It was a symbolic public declaration of a
new birth into a new life of righteous living. He knew Yeshua had no need of
such a baptism because he had no sin to turn from! It is Yeshua's answer to
John's protest that is interesting here. He said, "it is fitting for us
to fulfillallrighteousness". Yeshua indicated to John
that this was not to be the usual type of baptism. His baptism was to "fulfill
all righteousness". I believe Yeshua's baptism was a type of anointing into the
priesthood where righteousness is to be fulfilled. And this baptism was
to be done by John, a Levite, the son of Zacharias and Elizabeth who were
full-blooded Levites.

Back to king and priest in one

The book of Ezekiel prophesies in great detail of
the Messianic age as well as the third temple period and all that goes with it.
The following are a few excerpts. As you read, notice how royalty is officiating
at the altar in the third passage . The first two passages are given to
establish that the prince mentioned in the third passage is in fact the son of
David.

"I will establish one shepherd over them, and
he shall feed them—My servant David. He shall feed them and be their
shepherd. And I, the Lord, will be their God, and My servant David aprinceamong them; I, the Lord,
have spoken." Ezekiel 34:23,24

"David My servant shall be king
over them, and they shall all have one shepherd; they shall also walk in My
statutes, and do them. Then they shall dwell in the land that I have given to
Jacob My servant, where your fathers dwelt; and they shall dwell there, they,
their children, and their children’s children, forever; and My servant
David shall be theirprinceforever. Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them, and it
shall be an everlasting covenant with them; I will establish them and multiply
them, and I will set My sanctuary in their midst forevermore. My tabernacle
also shall be with them; indeed I will be their God, and they shall be My
people. The nations also will know that I, the Lord, sanctify Israel, when My
sanctuary is in their midst forevermore." Ezekiel 37:24-28

"All the people of the land shall give this
offering for the Prince in Israel. Then it shall be the Prince’s
part to give burnt offerings, grain offerings, and drink offerings, at the
feasts, the New Moons, the Sabbaths, and at all the appointed seasons of the
house of Israel. He shall prepare the sin offering, the grain offering,
the burnt offering, and the peace offerings to make atonement for the house of
Israel."Ezekiel 45:16,17

Here we have royalty acting in the office of High Priest.
We also have animal sacrifices for sin being offered during the Messianic age.
This is not the only mention of burnt offerings during the Messianic age. More
will be mentioned about this later. But this picture obviously throws a major
monkey wrench in the logistical gears of the book of Hebrews.

Yeshua and the Messianic age

Since the book of Hebrews is wrong in explaining
away these prophecies as being fulfilled in a heavenly sense, I must agree with
the only other option. I believe that Yeshua is alive and will return to this
earth to fulfill the remaining great bulk of Messianic prophecies. At that time
he will deliver Israel and ascend the throne of his earthly father David, and
begin his priestly ministry. This picture is also found in the book of
Revelation in spite of the fact that it conflicts with the book of Hebrews. In
the gospels, Yeshua said himself on numerous occasions that he would return to
set up the kingdom of God, but there is an even more specific picture given in
the book of Revelation.

"And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and
judgment was committed to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been
beheaded for their witness to Yeshua and for the word of God, who had not
worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their
foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Messiah for a
thousand years. But the rest of the dead did not live again until the
thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy
is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has
no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Messiah, and shall reign
with him a thousand years." Revelation 20:4-6

No doubt, it is during this thousand year reign
taht all the kingly and priestly Messianic prophecies will be fulfilled.

Hebrews and the new covenant

In Christianity, the doctrine of the new
covenant supposedly began at Yeshua's crucifixion, and is the final word on
which is based the belief that the law of Moses is an old covenant and "obsolete".
This doctrine is where the very terms "Old Testament" and "New
Testament" have their origin. The old King James version uses the word
"testament" whereas most others use "covenant". This new replacing old doctrine
could not be farther from the truth. In the book of Hebrews, this doctrine is
fueled by a desperate-for-an-answer misinterpretation of another Messianic-age
prophecy. Remember, the author of Hebrews was attempting to give a
fulfilled-in-full explanation to all the prophecies concerning the Messiah. The
reasoning is that since the Messianic age obviously didn't physically occur on
earth, it must have occurred in some other way or place. Again, in the text of
the book of Hebrews, there is absolutely no mention of a literal future
fulfillment on earth of any of these prophecies. In the author's mind, it has
already come.

In Hebrews 8:8-10 the author himself quotes the
passage from Jeremiah where God makes mention of a new covenant. This
passage in Jeremiah is located in the middle of a section where there are many
Messianic-age prophecies, not the least of which is chapter 33 as quoted above.
Notice how the following prophecy begins and it's similarity to the chapter 33
prophecy. This passage reads:

Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with
the house of Judah, not according to the covenant that I made with their
fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land
of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says
the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of
Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law
in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God,
and they shall be My people. Jeremiah 31:31-33

First notice to whom the new covenant is to be
made. It is "with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah". This is a
very important point to note. Hebrews makes no comment on this point though.
Instead, the only conclusion the author draws from this prophecy is this grand
leap of logic.

In that He says, "A new covenant," He
has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and
growing old is ready to vanish away. Hebrews 8:13

The prophecy from Jeremiah of the coming new
covenant is given specifically to Israel and Judah... and no one else!
Sorry Gentile Christianity. And if this were not enough to end the matter, the
description of what the new covenant will be completely does away with
any notion that there is anything old or obsolete with the Law of
Moses! God says;

"...this is the covenant that I will
make with the house of Israel... I will put My laws in their
mind and write them on their hearts;..."

The new covenant is not a new and
different law. It is the same identical law! The only difference is that
Israel will be given a new heart that will instinctively know all of God's
law and have the desire to perform it. But even after quoting this part of the
prophecy, the writer of Hebrews continues to neglect the obvious fact that this
new covenant is obviously the same law. After starting with the erroneous
presupposition that the daysto come spoken of in the prophecy are
now here, all the author of Hebrews is able to derive from this passage is that,
since those days are here, there must now exist the new covenant. And if
there is a new covenant, then the previous one must be old and
obsolete! But none of these assumptions are true.

The new covenant is to be enacted in the
future during the Messianic age when Yeshua returns, the third temple is
built, and the sacrificial system re-instituted. Again, there are many beautiful
prophesies if this time. In the book of Ezekiel, starting with chapter 40
through to the end of the book, are 9 chapters dedicated solely to the
description of the third temple period, which is the Messianic age.
According to these prophecies every jot and tittle of the Law of Moses will
stand. As God spoke to Ezekiel and built toward these chapters, He began making
many references to that time to come. Here is one that speaks of the same new
covenant.

"For I will take you from among the nations,
gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land. Then I will
sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from
all your filthiness and from all your idols. I will give you a new
heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone
out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within
you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep
My judgments and do them. Ezekiel 36:24-27

Yeshua and the new covenant

On one occasion, Yeshua also made mention of the
new covenant. It was during the last Passover supper the evening before
his crucifixion.

Likewise he also took the cup after supper,
saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is shed for
you." Luke 22:20 & Mark 14:24

Yeshua was undoubtedly referencing the same
prophecy in Jeremiah. What he meant by this statement is that one of the things
his sacrifice would purchase is the new covenant as prophesied in
Jeremiah. But, though the purchase price for the new covenant was paid for at
the time of Yeshua's crucifixion, that did not mean the new covenant would begin
immediately. Only a few verses earlier, Yeshua clearly pointed this fact out.

Then he said to them, "With fervent desire I
have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you,
I will no longer eat of it untilitisfulfilled
in the kingdom of God." Luke 22:15,16

Question: Until what is fulfilled? Answer:
The new covenant, established by his blood... represented in the cup
of Passover!When? Not immediately, but much later in the
kingdom of God when he returned... the Messianic age!
Remember, Yeshua was celebrating Passover with disciples who were Jews.
He was speaking to Jews, children of Israel, concerning the new
covenant which was promised to their ancestors. He was not in any way
speaking to the Gentile world, nor was he indicating to anyone that Moses was
finished. And as far a Yeshua's position on Moses goes, he had clearly said in
the sermon on the mount that as long as the earth lasted (which must also
include the grand-finale 1000 year Messianic age), not one jot or tittle of
Moses would pass away. Matthew 5:17,18

Paul and the new covenant

Not only does Hebrews completely misinterpret the
new covenant prophecy in Jeremiah, but our resident false apostle Paul is
in perfect agreement with the author in assuming the new covenant has already
come. His take on the new covenant adds another dimension. It's not for
Israel... it's for Gentile believers who are in his eyes the new true Israel
of God! (Galatians 6:15,16)

"...who also made us sufficient as
ministers of the new covenant,..." "Therefore, since we have such hope,
we use great boldness of speech--unlike Moses, who put a veil
over his face so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the
end of what was passing away. But their minds were hardened. For until
this day the same veil remains un-lifted in the reading of the old
testament (old covenant), because the veil is taken away in
Christ." 2Corintians 3:6a,12-14

If it were not bad enough that Paul had likewise
erred in assuming the new covenant had come, he has to top the error by lifting
himself above Moses in the eyes of the Gentile Corinthian believers! Well...
enough of Paul in this chapter.

The extortive threat tactics of the
author of Hebrews

The author of Hebrews is also well known for
making fearful warnings to those who do not get in line and agree with his
doctrine. Many Christians have spent sleepless nights worrying about the
implications of certain passages in Hebrews. The most notable of them are
these.

Therefore, since a promise remains of entering
His rest, let us fear lest any of you seem to have come short of it.
Hebrews 4:1

For it is impossible for those who were
once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers
of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the
world to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance,
since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put him to an open
shame. Hebrews 6:4-6

For if we sin willfully after we have received
the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but
a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will
devour the adversaries. Anyone who has rejected Moses' law dies without
mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worsepunishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled
the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he
was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know
Him who said, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. And again,
"The Lord will judge His People." It is a fearful thing to fall into
the hands of the living God. Hebrews 10:26-31

Concerning this last quote, if the argument is
true that Yeshua's crucifixion was the finale all-encompassing only sacrifice to
make atonement for sins, then Hebrews might legitimately make some
of the warnings it does. But as I have shown and will further establish in the
next chapter, What about burnt offerings, the author is far from correct
in his presuppositions. It must also be pointed out that the idea of backsliders
not being able to repent is a perfectly foreign concept to both the prophets and
Yeshua. See Ezekiel 18:19-32 and Matthew 18:10-14

Of course, all those who employ these extortive
threat tactics thoroughly believe their doctrines are correct and they honestly
believe they are doing others a priceless favor if they can manage to convince
them to agree. But what this philosophy really amounts to is the end
justifies the means. It is very common in many religious institutions today
and is used regularly on easily impressionable children. It would be a repulsive
tactic even if their doctrines were correct! But, as I have shown, the
doctrines of Paul and of Hebrews are severely flawed from the start. So I would
encourage others to not be struck with fear by their intimidating words. They
are not the words of God.

Conclusion

There are many other logistical problems
with the lines of reason in the book of Hebrews. One could easily write another
book on these errors in logic and philosophy alone. In the next chapter, we will
look at the subject of burnt offerings. Much of the misunderstanding of this
issue also comes from the book Hebrews. As this subject is addressed it will
further establish the errors of Hebrews. The issues I have covered thus far in
this chapter are the main presuppositions on which the remaining doctrines and
arguments in the book of Hebrews are based. The remaining arguments fall under
the weight of these errors.

So is Hebrews better? Absolutely not! The book of
Hebrews most certainly is not the infallible word of God, nor is it one
bit better than any of Paul's books. The truth of the matter is, because it
attempts to do away with God's law, if Hebrews is not the worst book in the
Bible in the eyes of heaven, it is second only to some of Paul's works.